The transition to civilian rule in Brazil has generated a veritable flood of studies that examine the legacy left by two decades of military rule, and the possibilities raised by the “Nova República.” The vast majority of these studies, however, have been difficult to find in the United States, and have been available only in Portuguese. Thus, State and Society in Brazil, an anthology that includes contributions from Brazilian and U.S. social scientists on a wide variety of topics, is a welcome addition to the literature on contemporary Brazil.
The book is divided into three sections: “Economy and Society,” “Institutions and Organizations,” and “Policy and Perceptions of Basic Structures.” Economists Regis Bonelli and Pedro S. Malan open part one with a lively discussion of industrialization policy under the military. They emphasize the military’s real commitment to rapid industrial growth (in contrast to the Argentinian and Chilean militaries) and genuine accomplishments in the economic sphere. They point out, however, that the military regime maintained a high rate of growth from 1974 to 1978, when the international situation turned sour, only by contracting ever larger amounts of foreign debt. The military’s profligacy during the mid-’70s has, in turn, forced the current civilian government to modify its strategy of basing economic development on the internal market and national capital. A crushing burden of debt and a desperate need for new investment have led to greater emphasis on production for export and attraction of foreign capital.
The article on employment and social stratification by sociologists Carlos A. Hasenbalg and Nelson do Valle Silva, echoing the earlier work on social mobility by José Pastore, arrives at several conclusions that challenge conventional wisdom. The authors argue that the accelerated urbanization and industrial growth that occurred from 1970 on generated a highly significant degree of upward social mobility. Their research shows that the industrial sector, rather than the service economy, absorbed the largest share of the new urban migrants, and that this shift from agriculture to industry represents an important path of upward mobility, indeed, they go so far as to claim that “the recent Brazilian experience is one of the most radical yet observed in any society” (p. 99). Unfortunately, the authors are so concerned to show movement between occupational categories that they slight the issue of what such mobility means. Since their own data indicate a worsening in income distribution and a declining or stagnant minimum wage during the period under discussion, it behooves us to ask whether social mobility in this context actually entailed improvements in the standard of living for the average Brazilian.
Parts two and three address more directly the relationship between state and society, and the extent to which the state, under civilian rule, can become more responsive to new political and social groups. The articles in this volume generally view the period of military rule as the culmination of the strong, centralized, authoritarian state formed during the dictatorship of Getúlio Vargas (1930-45), and acknowledge that the extensive interpenetration of state and society continues under the Nova República. But the period of opposition to the military regime spawned a series of political and social movements that have attempted to remain autonomous from state control and traditional forms of political patronage, and several articles examine the possibilities that these movements present.
Maria Hermínia lavares de Almeida’s piece on “novo sindicalismo” chronicles the rise of a militant, autonomous union movement among São Paulo’s metallurgical workers and the subsequent creation of the Partido dos Trabalhadores. Renato Boschi’s contribution analyzes a similarly dramatic development: the formation of thousands of “neighborhood associations” in Brazilian cities since 1970. For many Brazilians, these associations epitomize the struggle for grass-roots organizing and political autonomy. But Boschi points out that the associations, in most cases, seek specific services or physical improvements that can only be secured through the public sector. Given the rampant expansion of the state in Brazil since 1930, even groups wishing to challenge state regulation and control cannot avoid involvement with the government bureaucracy.
Ben Ross Schneider, in his excellent analysis of state economic policy and the private sector in postauthoritarian Brazil, makes a parallel argument about the relationship between the state and private sector industrialists. Despite the intermittent clamor for “privatization,” most industrial firms have become so dependent on the state for their survival, whether through government contracts or direct subsidies, that private business groups generally accept the massive role of the state in the economy, and materially benefit from it.
The final article is a refreshing departure from the conventional social science approach that characterizes the rest of this volume. Using a comparative framework, anthropologist Roberto da Matta presents a fascinating deconstruction of the concept of “citizen” in Brazilian society. According to da Matta, in more “modern” democratic societies the status of citizen with equal rights before the law is a desirable one. In Brazil, by contrast, to be treated as a citizen is to be reduced to an “equal but inferior” status that exposes the individual to brutality and exploitation. Thus, Brazilians seek to construct an identity before the state that is defined by family connections, influential friends, and other sources of prestige. Moreover, da Matta claims that an individual who strictly obeys the law is regarded as a “jerk,” someone without prestige, rather than a citizen deserving of praise.
Da Matta’s thesis is a compelling one, but it has its limitations. For example, when he declares that “[t]here is no Brazilian who has never used the expression ‘do you know to whom you are speaking?,’” he tells us that his archetypal Brazilian is white, male, and middle class. And his attempt to explain the persistence of premodern attitudes regarding citizenship and privilege raises more questions than it answers. Nevertheless, his article represents an important contribution to the literature on the transition to civilian rule and the obstacles to the creation of a more equitable and responsive political system. The editors of this volume are to be commended for including an article that extends the discussion into the realm of culture.
